PDA

View Full Version : Verizon Says Google, Microsoft Should Pay For Internet Apps



johnnymk
01-06-2006, 05:54 AM
By Paul Kapustka Courtesy of TechWeb News

LAS VEGAS, Nev. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch on the Internet, according to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, who said Thursday that providers of bandwith-intensive Internet applications, including Google and Microsoft, should "share the cost" of operating broadband networks.

According to Seidenberg, Verizon and Google are already talking about how such compensation might be structured, striking a tone far more diplomatic than AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre, who last year openly criticized Internet application providers like Google and Voice over IP provider Vonage Holdings.

"We talk to them [Google] all the time, and they understand the issue," said Seidenberg, in a question-and-answer period following his keynote speech Thursday at the Consumer Electronics show here. Google, which already offers a bevy of online apps like email, instant messaging, voice and satellite map searches, is expected to announce a video-download service here Friday. (Google could not be reached for comment immediately.)

While Seidenberg said Verizon "intuitively" believes that the Internet should be open to all applications, he also said that "we need to make sure there is the right economic model," especially in regards to so-called "free" or advertising-supported applications, which generally do not offer any direct compensation to the network service provider.

"We have to make sure that they [application providers] don't sit on our network and chew up bandwidth," Seidenberg said. "We need to pay for the pipe."

Unlike Whitacre, who has previously called Internet application providers like Vonage "free riders," Seidenberg seems far more amenable to negotiations and partnerships. "Google and Microsoft are our partners," he said, crediting the companies for creating huge markets with their applications and services, which all need networks like Verizon's to thrive.

But Seidenberg also noted that despite the explosing of Internet applications and devices, all content providers ultimately need a network to reach customers, and he said Verizon is "one of three or four [companies]" with a widespread reach across multiple access platforms.

"Those guys [Google and Microsoft] gotta use a network," Seidenberg said. "But it's also incredible when you see the innovation that a Google, a Microsoft or an AOL can create. In the long run, Google won't work without us, and we won't work without them."

Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications, said Verizon would not block specific applications, an issue that emerged early last year when a telecom service provider briefly tried to block Vonage's VoIP services.

"We would not do that [block specific applications], and it shouldn't be done," said Tauke, who said that Verizon is actually in favor of codifying so-called "network neutrality" rules, as long as there are provisions for parallel private networks, like Verizon's nascent fiber-based television services. At CES, Verizon announced plans for an online gaming network that would also likely be segmented away from the "open" Internet, so that Verizon could better control the performance of the network.

As for open Internet applications, Seidenberg said it's still too early in the game to try to make definitive statements about how service providers and application providers can co-exist, partner, and compete.

"When we offered 800 numbers, our network got flooded and we responded by choking the network," Seidenberg said, adding that the company then negotiated with 800-service providers to help pay for their usage in a manner that made sense for both parties.

"Now it's a new game, and Google and Microsoft are great at creating markets," Seidenberg said. "It's too early to draw a line in the sand," he added. "I don't think I'd ever say these guys are not going to ride on my pipes."

gwilks98
01-06-2006, 06:39 AM
Yeah, that's Verizon. Their network and service is great, but don't expect anything to come free.

chadlnc
01-06-2006, 06:56 AM
I don't really like where the tone of that is going. They provide the network, the software companies provide the applications, the consumer pays for the combination of the two that they want. I see potential problems lurking when you start talking about certain companies paying to be on a network, inevitably someone gets squeezed out of the picture and it usually ends up being the guy that doesn't have the money to line the other guy's pockets.

bachviet
01-06-2006, 07:54 AM
Yeah, that's Verizon. Their network and service is great, but don't expect anything to come free.
:stupid:

Verizon locks up the phone bluetooth so customers can't do PIM. :disa:

gwilks98
01-08-2006, 09:38 PM
:stupid:

Verizon locks up the phone bluetooth so customers can't do PIM. :disa:


I couldn't help but think of this thread when I read this:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060106/1826206_F.shtml


Yesterday we wrote about Verizon Wireless' overpriced, me-too music download offering that would let you transfer songs to your phone if you bought them online (for $1/song) or let you pay twice as much if you really, really, really needed the song immediately and wanted to download it directly to your phone over the air. That wasn't that surprising, as everyone had pretty much expected it. However, PCS Intel is claiming that signing up for this program on your phone might have some nasty side-effects that could interest some anti-trust lawyers. It's using Microsoft technology to handle copy protection, and apparently if you upgrade your phone to support Verizon Wireless' music store you will no longer be able to play MP3s on your phone. Basically, the new phone software proactively stops any attempts at playing MP3s -- which PCS Intel claims was part of the agreement Microsoft made with Verizon Wireless. If they were going to do this, then they wanted the phones to be exclusively set to play Microsoft's format. If true (and some additional support would be nice) that should set off quite a few anti-trust alarm bells somewhere. PCS Intel claims to have an internal memo from Verizon Wireless discussing this issue, and saying that should anyone complain, they're to be given a refurbished phone with older firmware, but that users are not to be warned ahead of time that an upgrade will wipe out their MP3-playing abilities. If this is true, it looks bad for both Verizon Wireless and Microsoft.

ArkiStan
01-08-2006, 11:50 PM
However they split the bill, it's not gonna do us any good. As long as internet access is commercially sold as a paid service I don't see prices getting any cheaper any time soon.

Merlin
01-09-2006, 05:26 AM
I pay quite enough for my broadband access thank you. It is up to them to find a way to make it handle the amount of traffic modern users demand. If applications get blocked then time to switch providers.

So if the application providers would have to start paying for the network does that mean I get a price break?

chadlnc
01-09-2006, 05:33 AM
So if the application providers would have to start paying for the network does that mean I get a price break?

Fat chance of that happening. I'm sure they'll find some excuse to raise rates even though someone else is footing part of the bill.

LegendKiller
01-09-2006, 06:08 AM
So, when will the government start charging GM/Ford/Toyota for their cars using the roads? I am sure the additional tax will be passed to us.

ArkiStan
01-09-2006, 08:11 AM
1. If Microsoft doesn't agree to pay the bills Verizon will say, "Ok then the customers are gonna have to contribute some more."

2. If Microsoft does agree to pitch in Micosoft will say, "Ok, since we're paying more now, we're gonna have to start charging customers monthly for the use of our products."

Hopefully there will be a way to use neither of the company's products, but it's not like all the other companies out there aren't greedy, blood sucking bastards either.

Either way the customer is doomed.